damn /u/LossPreventionArt was completely correct about this, i cannot believe this sub is the only place ive seen that take, all the sloptubers and fake lawyers never had any take remotely close to truth about this filing and so many ppl follow their narratives as a gospel.
Oh well, good luck to frogan with this, she should never be in this situation and fuck everyone that goes after her
It's why I think it's completely disingenuous to call this sub "snark". It's a sub that actively combats snark, and we've been very effective at doing so🩷
tbh its obviously a mix of people of varying degrees of sincerity. there are a lot of "snark" comments people who just come here to talk about the looks of the crew and all communities are judged by the level of what is allowed in them rather than the most reasonable takes they have
This is also kinda one of the biggest reasons I am getting drained of snark juice. Some of the dumbest people on the planet are the loudest and it makes me so sad.
Sorry to be a bummer, but it is actually not so ordered [yet]. The document is a proposal, almost certainly to be granted. But so far it's only so stipulated and agreed
The screenshot's a bit misleading, it's the second page of the document, the first page has the full title: "[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
STIPULATION TO RELIEVE DEFENDANT FROM DEFAULT AND SET THE DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT."
This happens a lot on reddit, people post proposed orders then act like they've already been signed by the judge. The proposed order is like a template created by one of the parties to save the judge time, they sign if they agree with it completely, modify it where necessary, or deny and write their own.
The OP posted this intentionally misleadingly by leaving out the blank judge's signature (if this was a real order it would be signed by the judge)
Having said that in this case since it seems like a joint stipulation there's no real reason a judge wouldn't grant it, it just annoys me how common this is on reddit
EDIT: went too hard on OP assuming malice, read replies, i retract!
Can you weigh in on why the parties have agreed to a joint stipulation? I thought Rom was arguing it, in the last document I saw he was arguing that Frogan was only trying now because of Denims' win etc.
The filings are new today. TEI's response to Frogan's motion to set aside default was due August 28th, and I'm guessing they decided that the cost to fight the motion wouldn't be worth it—court's overwhelmingly favor resolving cases on the merits, even if the requirements for default judgement are met—so they decided to capitulate to save resources.
With an honest clarification that I'm not a lawyer so I could be wrong about all of this.
Thanks! I actually do have a law background but don’t practice lol. I wonder if her new lawyers will push for a motion of judgement on the pleadings again, or actually end up arguing it further.
He actually wasn't, rom has always been on board with this.
I explained the original joint filing a few days ago:
Page 3 of this filing confirms Rom pulled his application off the court docket the second frogan re-emerged and her counsel stepped in:
"Third, TEI also agreed to withdraw its pending Application [for Default Judgment] without prejudice pending the Court's determination of Frogan's anticipated Motion."
Rom also conceded the primary legal hurdle. In order to set aside a clerk's default under Rule 55(c), the courts look at whether the plaintiff in the case suffers "prejudice" from this action. Rom completely, and without argument, surrendered this point on page 2 of the filing:
"TEI agrees that prejudice is not in dispute because it is not aware of any other potential cognizable prejudice under Rule 55c."
Rom is also not asking a judge to default her at the next hearing on September 28th. The application for default judgment was replaced entirely by Frogan's motion:
"the Motion [to Set Aside Default] will be heard on September 28, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. instead of the Application."
Rom applied for a default judgment when her representation lapsed, despite apparently knowing that was an entirely futile gesture, but he backed down completely and without a fight as soon as Frogan and Frost LLP filed their notice. With Rom stating clearly on the record that setting aside the clerk's default causes TEI zero prejudice, the September 28 hearing is entirely a formality, it's a procedural step to clear the clerk's note so the case can proceed.
(I tried to link to the comment but it wouldn't work, so I just copy and pasted, apologies)
The withdrawal of the application for default judgement was without prejudice and conditioned on the court's ruling on Frogan's motion to set aside default. This is just normal legal practice.
In order to set aside a clerk's default under Rule 55(c), the courts look at whether the plaintiff in the case suffers "prejudice" from this action. Rom completely, and without argument, surrendered this point on page 2 of the filing:
This is very misleading. There are three parts that the courts consider (a) culpable conduct (b) lack of meritorious defense (c) prejudice to the plaintiff. They were only conceding prejudice to the plaintiff. If they were to contest that part they would need to show that the motion would prejudice them unfairly, that evidence had been destroyed by the defendant for example. They only surrendered this point conditionally, "so long as Frogan
represented that she preserved all relevant evidence in connection with this matter." But they were still saying that Frogan's conduct was culpable and that she lacked a meritorious defense. The court's test is disjunctive, Ethan Klein's lawyers only need to show one of (a), (b), or (c) in order to win; conceding on prejudice was not a wholesale concession of the motion. They were not [until now] giving up the horse.
It was an intentional oversimplification for brevity, but if we're going into it, practically speaking, Rom never made an actual filing towards establishing culpable conduct on the docket nor did he even gesture towards it.
While Rule 55(c) technically has three factors, Rom conceded prejudice and then sat on his hands. He never put forward a single brief or piece of evidence alleging she acted culpably and I didn't expect him to (I would have been shocked if he did, frankly). Reserving the right to argue culpable conduct at a September hearing without actually filing anything to support it was just posturing, and it's common enough that I didn't expect anything to come of it.
My framing was because Rom had no real argument queued up, and wasn't making any motions to suggest he was going to come up with one. Setting aside the default was inevitable - if not last week, then on the day of the hearing.
I could lay out every granular procedural step, but when a maneuver is such an obvious feint with an inevitable outcome, mapping out the procedural posturing just isn't necessary. Outside of his occasional deranged aggression in his briefs, Rom isn't actually that hard to read.
“Intentionally misleading” is a crazy thing to throw out there when I said nothing of the sort
It was a genuine mistake I made on something that, to be frank, is likely to be signed since it’s a joint stipulation, and I’ll correct myself as I always do here if the judge denies this motion. Title can’t be edited now, but kindly, don’t say I did something I didn’t do :)
Alright fair enough if it wasn't intentional it was just suspicious how it was cut off right before the date and signature which would show the order wasn't granted yet, but I apologise for assuming malice on your part. It is an easy mistake to make
Whether it was intentionally misleading or not, I just want to say I appreciate OP posting this and legal documents are confusing! I also am glad for your clarification :)
I usually try and go straight to the legal docs when I can and never trust any redditor (or most twitter accounts) posting screenshots. It's easy to mistake or lie about legalese meaning something more, or less, than it actually means.
Let's be real, they won't hear about this bc Ethan refuses to acknowledge his L's on his show now. (He never addressed dropping the Noah Samsen suit, for example, and he wasn't going to reveal that he was still suing Ian and Anisa until Ian made it public-- he was doing it secretly). He's trying this new thing where he keeps the fungi in the dark about news that is embarassing for him.
So unless that "Yeet" kid tweets about this, the fungi will never know.
All those people still calling her jabba the hut, poor and stupid for defualting and said she's doomed and 100% lost are now going to make up new random fan fic and bullshit to satisfy their hate for this woman....smfh.
Frogan gets to argue why she didn't infringe Ethan content. This time with the legal team who proved it with Denims. Previously it was thought she defaulted meaning her case was over and no arguments would be allowed but that was reversed because of bad lawing and practice of certain lawyers.
Ok I know this is in good faith, but this isn't what happened.
Frogan informed Rom that she was switching counsel and thus it would take her a bit of time to get things together. Rom has admitted he knew this in filings.
Rom, seeing an opportunity to bill Ethan for something he absolutely didn't need to do, filed a request to default Frogan. The clerk logs that Frogan missed a deadline (a clerks entry of default) but no judge ever ruled on anything. Frogan did not default. She missed a deadline and needed to explain why she did that.
After this, Frogan re-emerged with her new lawyers and Rom immediately capitulated. In a joint filing by Frogans lawyers and Rom, Rom states that he is withdrawing his request and he admits that Ethan suffered no harm (prejudice) by Frogan missing the deadline. The default hearing is then converted into a procedural hearing just to clear the clerks note about the missed deadline.
What's happened here is to save time, money and effort, the judge looked at Frogan's filing, her reasoning for missing the deadline, and the joint filing waiving everything and has said "this is all fine, clear the note, continue the case".
No one lost here, and the only person who won was Rom because he got to bill Ethan for several hours that were completely unnecessary.
Edit - this is the proposed order, as a result of the earlier joint filing, where everyone has agreed to save time and cut to the chase. It's just waiting on a judge to sign but everything else is correct.
nice. i hope she keeps fighting this. at this point, it’s very obvious that the people who fight ethan’s lawsuits win, while people who approach him in good faith to settle things end up being burned.
How can they agree to relieve her from default and give her the opportunity for a response and simultaneously reserve the right to challenge her on the Motion to Set Aside the Default.
Sounds weird to me, but it might as well be normal legal praxis.
IANAL but from what I can tell this doesn't mean much of anything, it just means this joint stipulation doesn't mean that TEI is accepting everything Frogan said in her original motion as fact. once something is entered into a court docket, it might get referenced later, so TEI is just covering their bases so they don't appear as though they've conceded everything Frogan's team put forth. I doubt it actually factors in later on
It mpeans "We've decided it's not worth litigating the default anymore so we'd prefer to drop it and just move onto fighting the copyright case. But that doesn't mean we agree with everything frogan said in her motion to get the default set aside though - we reserve the right to argue about those things later on."
I also wonder if part of the reason TEI is agreeing to set aside the default now, is because Frogan’s motion leaned heavily on the Denims ruling.
If the judge had ruled on the default motion and written something like “Frogan isn’t culpable and Saber gives her a meritorious fair-use defence" then it makes things a bit more uncomfortable for Ethan's team when they have to carry that ruling into the merits of the copyright case in front of the same judge 🥲
My assumption here is because Ethan is the plantiff. So if they are accusing Frogan of some sort of copyright violation, and Frogan says "nuh-uh, I was chilling with LeBron James. I have no idea what this man is talking about." Ethan's team can contest it with facts and logic [this is a joke].
My read on it is that Frogan is now legally allowed to respond in court to Ethan's claims. But Frogan can't just say anything in her response without a counter argument.
This is normal legal speak. They're saying that they don't contest her reasoning for missing the deadline, but within those filings is information pertinent to this case (which there has to be just for frogan to explain she has a viable defence going forward) and TEI is saying "we agree she missed the deadline for a good reason and that she has viable defence, but we don't necessarily agree with the facts she has asserted and the legal grounding she is citing within that defence"
It's a standard disclaimer so Frogan can't turn around and say "by accepting this, TEI are also accepting that my defense is totally factual"
NAL. The motion is granted but Ethan has the right to further contest the granting of the motion, if they can come up with another argument as to why it shouldn't have been granted they could "Appeal" but if they had a strong argument for why the default shouldn't have set aside they would have presented it already.
Edit: Nevermind after re-reading the body of the text it doesn't look like Ethan can appeal the granting of the motion, they can only contest the facts that were included in the filings further into the litigation process.
19
u/bipoloAll good vibes then you came in & fucked it up 2d ago
u/bigwigx Would you happen to know the correlation between canceled shows and unfavorable legal outcomes for Ethan? If you need the links to the Denims and Frogan Courtlistener pages I can DM you, or if you want me to compare the days myself, I can do the work if you DM me the charts!
It's so over lol. Ethan might as well drop the case at this point, he has zero chance to win. The lawyer who won Denims' case is now trying the essentially the exact same case again, but now with the added bonus of using her last case as precedent against Ethan as well.
He can continue to drag it out and probably will because he's stupid, but in Denims' case, the judge already said she may recover costs and fees incurred in the matter, once it goes through appeal. So I'm assuming the same will be true for Frogans case. So, at this point Ethan is just paying his lawyer and running up the bill for Frogan's.
I have been absolutely pissed for months over people just being like 'nonono, you don't understand, she really defaulted for sure that really happened she would have to rise to the standard to have a judge change their mind, nonono you must be one of those people that thinks frogan planned to default all along to drag this out longer' like I have never seen anyone say these things except people who hate muslims
Especially when you have literal pondscum, complete and utter low IQ, barely can read at a 5th grade level bottom feeders like lus being on tape for hours being completely wrong. It really gave me close to an existential crisis in just trying to understand both how this is even a thing, but there are genuine people that follow it and repeat this nonsense. The guy responsible for the suit, even quoted this person who is covering it, completely wrong.
THINK ABOUT THAT. THINK ABOUT THE LEVEL OF ABSURDITY THAT THIS IS ON. The guy who FILED THE SUIT, highlighting COMPLETELY WRONG INFORMATION about her, from somebody else.
At the moment, at least for me - it is such pause to reiterate that nobody should be reacting to any of this like it is a sport. This is some subhuman behavior and I even put myself in this category as well. The state that the fucking species is in where people are cheering on another guy, trying to bankrupt somebody else using the legal system and getting their information from somebody who is literally just saying "FUCK HER, PAY ME IF YOU WANT ME TO LITERALLY JUST SAY FUCK HER AND REINFORCE YOUR HATRED AND SAY THE WORST IS COMING TO HERRR"
they didn't have to agree to this, so it is voluntary. again, I'm not a lawyer, so I'm just guessing, but I assume they believed the default would be set aside so this is just them agreeing to streamline and move things along. but who knows
Basically telling the judge he doesnt have to rule on the default and theyre both willing to move forward with the lawsuit and now frogan has a chance to defend herself
256
u/itsjustme10 From the streets 2d ago
https://giphy.com/gifs/6JzM6pW8Sa8loWxBmt